AASV Student Abstract Review

The initial review and selection of presentations for the Student Seminar and Poster Session at the AASV Annual Meeting is accomplished by having all judges score the submitted abstracts using the Initial Abstract Evaluation form below. The judges are then asked to rank the abstracts according to these criteria in case of tie scores. The judges’ results are averaged and the 15 abstracts with the best numerical scores are chosen for oral presentation in the Student Seminar scholarship competition. The 15 abstracts with the next highest numerical scores are chosen for the Poster Competition. Additional qualifying abstracts are selected for display in the student poster session.

Initial Abstract Evaluation

Stage of Completion ______

• Complete (3)
• Experiment complete, data collected, and results are being interpreted (2)
• Still collecting data for project (1)
• Project has not begun yet (0)

Interest to Practitioners ______

• High interest and information immediately applicable (3)
• Interesting and some components applicable (2)
• Less interesting or applicable (1)
• Not very interesting or applicable (0)

Subject Contribution _____

• Significant contribution to industry knowledge (3)
• Moderate contribution to industry knowledge (2)
• Slight contribution to industry knowledge (1)
• No real contribution (0)

Abstract Quality ______
Was the abstract well-written (spelling, grammar), easy to follow (organization, clarity), and with good scientific depth?

• Exceptional – well-written and great scientific depth (5)
• Well-written – one minor area needs improvement (4)
• Acceptable – needing two or three minor improvements (3)
• Needs improving – needing moderate improvements (2)
• Needs significant improvements (1)
• Not acceptable – very poorly written; needs to be fully re-written (0)

If the abstract does not rank high enough for oral presentation, should it be allowed to be presented in poster format? _____Yes _____No